BIR/00CN/LIS/2021/0009 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CN/LIS/2021/0009, decided 4 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Unit 54a Sherborne Street, Birmingham, B16 8FR and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Unit 54a Sherborne Street, Birmingham, B16 8FR
Decision date: 4 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pennycuick Collins (current); Savills (previous).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020) | £38,740 | £38,740 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £72,412 | £72,412 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020) | £113,003 | £113,003 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds that the estimated costs for management fees of £38,740 in the 2020 Budget to be reasonable and that 0.776% of the same is payable by the Applicant.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that the budgeted figure of £72,412.00 for the Buildings Insurance (in respect of the Building and Development) in the 2020 Budget is reasonable and that 0.776% of the same is payable by the Applicant.”
“the Tribunal finds that the figure referred to as 'Staff Costs' of £113,003.00 in the 2020 Budget (which includes the costs of the employment of the Estates Manager and the additional security) to be a reasonable estimate and that 0.776% of the same is payable by the Applicant.”
“the Tribunal finds that the lessee is liable to pay the Material Charges Percentage of 0.776% of the budgeted costs for the maintenance of the lifts.”
“There appears to be no dispute between the parties that, other than a general letter sent to leaseholders in February 2020 and the email sent to the Applicant in August 2020, no other information was imparted to the Applicant in this regard.”
“The response in their email, received some six months later, did not alleviate the Applicant's concerns and no meetings were held with the leaseholders in 2020, in which the Applicant could have tried to obtain further clarification of the matters concerning him.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.